Terri Tims
Dr. Michael
English 5303 VC01
30 October 2013
Group
1: Fathers and Daughters
In A Midsummer
Night’s Dream Theseus gives Hermia three choices concerning her marital
state. Hermia can obey her father’s will
and marry Demetrius, she can face the penalty of death for not obeying the will
of her father, or she can become a nun and remain cloistered for the rest of
her life. The Duke of Athens, Theseus,
confirms Egeus’ absolute control in this situation, when the duke explains to
Hermia that her father should be as a god to he and that she should be pliable
to her father’s will. Hermia is like a
waxen shape that her father has created: “By him imprinted, and within his
power / To leave the figure or disfigure it” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 1.1. 51-52). A civil authority is clearly letting Hermia
know from the very beginning of the play that she has no choice but to obey her
father’s will. To disobey may very well
result in death or a limited experience of life.
Cordelia in King
Lear is another character whose father put her in the position of making a
life changing decision. While Hermia’s test may have been more one of
obedience, Cordelia’s test was, to Lear, one of love, while to Cordelia, the
test was more about honesty. In response to Lear’s question of how much she
loved him, Cordelia responded, “I love your majesty / According to my bond, no
more nor less” (King Lear
1.1.93). When Cordelia demonstrated
absolute honesty by not flattering her father with what he wanted to hear but
instead telling him that she loved him as any daughter should love her father,
Lear burst into childish rage. Lear
prompts Cordelia to change her declaration of love to a form that is more
pleasing to his ear, but Cordelia doggedly sticks to her truthful
response. Cordelia tells her father that
she will “Obey you, love you, and most honor you” (King Lear 1.1.97), but she will not lie to him.
Cordelia’s honesty in the face of Lear’s rage and
disappointment reveal to the reader the depth of her morality. Cordelia is willing to sacrifice her own
future to maintain her truthfulness. In
understanding Cordelia’s essentially moral nature, one can understand that if
Cordelia were put into a position like Hermia’s, where her father was requiring
Cordelia to marry someone she did not love, Cordelia would have obeyed her
father’s wishes. The Cordelia that is
presented in King Lear does not act
on the basis of her own desires or for her own self-promotion, but instead, her
every action is performed to maintain the code of morality. Cordelia is definitely not the Machiavellian
princess.
Cordelia and Kate from The Taming of the Shrew could almost serve as foils to one
another. Everything that Cordelia is,
Kate is not. Early on in the play, we
see Kate telling her father and her potential suitors that she has no desire to
consider marriage now and that anyone who crosses her will receive ill
treatment: “To comb your noodle with a three-legged stool, / And paint your face
and use you like a fool” (The Taming of
the Shrew 1.1.62-65). This
character is definitely not the hyper-moral Cordelia, but she is also not the
Hermia character who will elope with her love in the night. Kate of The
Taming of the Shrew (at least the Kate of the beginning of the play) is a
woman who stands up boldly for her own desires with no thought of morality,
legality, or custom. Kate has a will of
her own and demands that it be considered: “What, shall I be appointed hours, /
As though, belike, I knew not what to take, / And what to leave? Ha!” (The Taming of the Shrew
1.1.103-105). Kate would not have
allowed her father to command her to marry a man she did not love.
Interestingly, though, Kate would never have been
required by her father to marry someone she did not love. We see clearly in The Taming of the Shrew that Baptista is concerned that any
potential husband for Kate must win her heart.
Baptista is discussing with Petruchio a potential marriage with Kate
that would be a good financial move for all involved, when Baptista makes that
unexpected statement that Petruchio must win Kate’s love: “Ay, when the special
thing is well obtained. That is her
love; for that is all in all” (The Taming
of the Shrew 2.1.128-129). Baptista
would have never put Kate into the position that Egeus put Hermia.
Group
2: The “Pater Familias” Relates to His Daughter
In Shakespeare’s The
Tempest, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and The
Taming of the Shrew, the reader is introduced to father figures, without
accompanying mother figures, who attempt to control the romantic affairs of
their children. One has to wonder where
the mothers of these children are,
and how the children’s experiences with romance might have been different with
a mother’s touch to calm the father’s sometimes fierce reactions. While supposing how mothers might have
affected the outcome of the romances in the plays, one might also begin to
wonder about the plays’ receptions with modern audiences and modern audiences’
feelings of sympathy for the characters.
In The Tempest,
the reader is introduced to a Prospero who is almost a true “god”- father. He is able to control the weather, ensure the
destruction or safety of ships, and control spirits. Prospero controls his daughter’s introduction
to the world of mankind just as carefully as he has orchestrated life on the
island. Prospero exposes Miranda to
Ferdinand, and then rebukes her attraction to Ferdinand by saying that there
are plenty of better looking men out in the world: “Foolish wench, / To th’ most of men this is
a Caliban, / And they to him are angels” (The
Tempest 1.2.483-485). Prospero goes
on to put Ferdinand to physical labor, later explaining that the labor was a
test for his love of Miranda: “All thy vexations / Were but my trials of thy
love, and thou / Hast strangely stood the test” (4.1. 5-7) Then, Prospero goes
on to sanction Ferdinand and Miranda’s marriage but not the consummation of
that marriage until the ceremony is official.
Modern audiences could sympathize with Ferdinand and
Miranda greatly. Many could see in the
couple the over-protective father who keeps his daughter isolated from the real
world and from male company. Then, when
the daughter does meet an acceptable man, perhaps even the man the father would
have chosen for the daughter himself, that man still does not seem good enough
for “daddy’s little girl.” Potential
sons-in-law are routinely grilled and tested about physical abilities,
abilities to provide, and abilities to nurture a family. Then, even when the marriage ceremony is
over, many daughters and sons-in-law still feel trepidation about their new
sexual relationship and the opinions of their parents. Though this discomfort is becoming less
common as the world becomes more open about sexuality, there are still new
brides who struggle to look their parents in the eye after the festivities of
the honey-moon. There are many
opportunities for modern audiences to see romantic relationships of today in
Shakespeare’s romance The Tempest.
Audiences would have a more difficult time relating to
the young lovers in A Midsummer Night’s
Dream. Egeus’ preference for
Demetrius seems irrational. As Lysander
states, “I am, my lord, as well derived as he, / As well possessed; my love is
more than his; My fortunes every way as fairly ranked” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 1.1.99-101). It seems foolish to audiences today that a
parent would interfere in the true love of a child, especially when the child’s
beloved is in all ways excellent and to be desired. Plenty of parents may try to discourage an
unfortunate match, but Egeus’ interference in Hermia’s relationship seems
unfounded. Though modern audiences would
enjoy the story, they would not be able to relate to the situation as
intimately and could not truly empathize with the characters.
The Taming of the
Shrew is another of Shakespeare’s plays that although modern audiences
could enjoy the story, the audience could not generate a true empathy with the
characters. First of all, Kate’s
character is so extreme. Her behavior, though not acceptable in Shakespeare’s
time, would definitely not be acceptable today and would be considered less
“comedic” and more “abusive.” Kate is a
bully. An example of her bullying nature
are her threats and her actual abuse of her sister in Act 2, Scene 1. Kate and Bianca’s ineffectual father can do
nothing to curb Kate’s behavior, and he in fact makes everything worse when he
proclaims that Bianca cannot marry until Kate does: “Gentlemen, importune me no
farther, / For how I firmly am resolved you know: That is, not to bestow my
youngest daughter / Before I have a husband for the elder” (The Taming of the Shrew 1.1.48-51).
Though modern audiences may be familiar with the idea of concern over marriage
of younger before older, the tradition of this being a concern has pretty much
worked its way out of modern society.
With an unlovable female lead, a major plot feature
rooted in archaic tradition, and a conclusion that would offend feminists
everywhere, The Taming of the Shrew
would not be a story with which modern viewers could relate. Though the characters are large and
laughable, they are too far from modern reality for the play to be very
relatable to the situations of modern audiences.
When looking for entertainment or insight into humanity
and the human condition, any work by Shakespeare would fulfill every reader’s
needs. However, if one seeks a play in
which the reader can find characters that are relatable to modern romance,
Shakespeare’s The Tempest is the best
of the bard’s works to consider.
good
ReplyDelete